Thompson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thompson v. State

725 So. 2d 1217, 1999 WL 12935

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 15, 1999

Docket97-04138

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 1217 (Thompson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. State, 725 So. 2d 1217, 1999 WL 12935 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

725 So.2d 1217 (1999)

James Renorris THOMPSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-04138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 15, 1999. Rehearing Denied February 12, 1999.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Renorris Thompson, challenges his judgments and sentences for delivery of cocaine, possession of cocaine, aggravated assault, and felonious possession of a firearm. He contends that, pursuant to White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1998), twenty-five points for possession of a semiautomatic firearm were erroneously added to *1218 his guidelines score. Though the State concedes error, White merely addresses the inappropriate assessment of eighteen points for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, where the possession or use of such is already an element of the crime. In State v. Davidson, 666 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), however, this court determined that the twenty-five points for use of a semiautomatic firearm could be assessed for the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, because the additional points were intended to distinguish "between types of firearms." Davidson explains that the rule calling for the twenty-five-point assessmentFlorida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(12)"manifests nothing more than legislative recognition of the need to deter through enhanced punishment the use of semiautomatic firearms and their potential for the infliction of severe injury during the commission of criminal acts." Id., 666 So.2d at 942. We again reach that conclusion. The twenty-five points at issue were therefore properly added to Thompson's guidelines score for his possession of a semiautomatic firearm with respect to his conviction for felonious possession of a firearm.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., THREADGILL and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

725 So.2d 1217 (1999)

James Renorris THOMPSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-04138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 15, 1999. Rehearing Denied February 12, 1999.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Renorris Thompson, challenges his judgments and sentences for delivery of cocaine, possession of cocaine, aggravated assault, and felonious possession of a firearm. He contends that, pursuant to White v. State, 714 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1998), twenty-five points for possession of a semiautomatic firearm were erroneously added to *1218 his guidelines score. Though the State concedes error, White merely addresses the inappropriate assessment of eighteen points for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, where the possession or use of such is already an element of the crime. In State v. Davidson, 666 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), however, this court determined that the twenty-five points for use of a semiautomatic firearm could be assessed for the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, because the additional points were intended to distinguish "between types of firearms." Davidson explains that the rule calling for the twenty-five-point assessmentFlorida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(12)"manifests nothing more than legislative recognition of the need to deter through enhanced punishment the use of semiautomatic firearms and their potential for the infliction of severe injury during the commission of criminal acts." Id., 666 So.2d at 942. We again reach that conclusion. The twenty-five points at issue were therefore properly added to Thompson's guidelines score for his possession of a semiautomatic firearm with respect to his conviction for felonious possession of a firearm.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., THREADGILL and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 1217, 1999 WL 12935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

James Renorris THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

James Renorris THOMPSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.